Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I am confused by your approach as it seems you are attempting to grade your way to a ‘look’. For me, grading is only finessing what you have recorded not attempting to ‘find a look’.
I was not on Burn After Reading but from working on many other films with Joel and Ethan I can say that they would have had a clear idea of the shots they wanted. It is rare they shoot a shot they don’t intend to use. They edit their films and know the flow of a scene before they get into the cutting room.
I did use ND on the windows for some shots but I can’t remember exactly which ones. I would often have frames made to fit the windows and cover one set with an ND3 and another with ND6. I found that gave a range of options and the adjustment made quite quickly. If there was the budget I would have hard gels cut to size but that was only rarely possible and there would have to be a solid reason for going that route. On A Serious Man we were working with a minimal budget and the windows in that office were quite large. We might have only ‘pasted’ soft gel directly onto the glass using soapy water.
Broad question. Given we were shooting on location – facing west and not on the ground floor – there were many issues with the changing daylight. I mainly controlled the light using reflectors outside the windows, to both bounce light off and to cut any direct sunlight. It also helped that the Coen brothers had storyboarded the scenes and I could judge, within reason, which angles to shoot at a particular time of day.
I suggest you break down the camera angles and shoot each based on the angle of the sun – that is if there is a shot list or storyboard.
What is cinema/cinematic? In suggesting that an image on a cell phone can be cinematic you have answered your own question. The way we tell stories is always evolving. Perhaps the only “pure form” is the written one.
The Coen Brothers would occasionally cut into a shot to shorten a pause in the dialogue or action. I would sometimes know of these jump cuts before I began to time a film but, especially when we were making photochemical prints at the lab, I might only notice them when each section of the cut film negative had to have an individual printer light.
Personally, I would not say there was any more anarchy in the chemical process than in the digital realm. Of course, in the digital world you can see the results straight away whereas with film you need to test.
Think of flashing the negative as bringing up the fog level of the emulsion. The clear areas are fogged and that leaves more information in the blacks of the print. The more intense the light the less intense the shadows. I have flashed/fogged with a very warm colored light to introduce color into the shadows. On The Assassination of Jesse James we intended to both flash the negative with a warm light, to produce color in the shadows, while using a bleach bypass process to enhance the contrast and reduce the saturation. In the end we decided to process the neg with a bleach bypass but to create the warmth in the DI. The point is that we could have done it photochemically had we the time and money. These processes can be quite precise.
It may be the 12 x 12 was flattening the face whereas a 12 x 4 gives more light and shade. Hard to say when I have no idea how far the bounce was from the subject, how high or if the light was evenly spread across it. I will often use three 4 x 4s and allow the central reflector to be brighter than those to the sides. You might control the spot of a lamp on a 12 x 12 and obtain a similar result. There are all sorts of combinations even with such a simple set up.
I taped a florescent tube on the hood of the car. One was cool the other, for Silvio’s car, was warm.
I am not aware that the two versions of Sicario are so different. That the highlights are at 1000 nits comes as a shock. I would not sanction that.
I don’t want to give specific advice for something I am not familiar with. Your gaffer obviously has something specific in mind.
An array of Spacelites is an option that has worked on a great many films over the years and with LEDs can be even more versatile. Not sure the blue screen would need additional light either.
I think the only real rule is ‘if it feels right’. It is hard to cut two close up shots together, of people talking to each other, if the characters are looking to the same side of camera. But that said, I see it all the time. Sometimes it doesn’t bother me but more usually it does. You can take this basic fact and expand it to a three shot or an over the shoulder and on. But, take two people in a doorway. You can’t always physically put the camera over the ‘right’ shoulder but it can work. A straight reverse. It feels right.
Yes, “Perfect is the enemy of good’ and it is up to the cinematographer to work within the limitations of a production. And its a given that there is never the time or the equipment you might desire. You are not working in an ideal world and you are hired to deliver “a certain level of work”. But when that level falls below what you can get any satisfaction from – when you feel you are just working for a paycheck – what then?
I would say it is a combination of what is shot and editing. The balance can vary between a film that is tightly storyboarded or worked out in a blocking rehearsal and one for which alternative coverage is provided.
Both the scenes you mention were conceived prior to the start of shooting. The Village was entirely storyboarded and our shots were almost exactly as we had planned. Jesse James was also pre planned (a shot list rather than complete storyboards) but some shots we added as we worked with the actors.
